Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a great pity that the media coverage of the successful conclusion of the court case against Abdul Nacer Benbrika and his followers has been dominated by a beat-up about the comments of the Attorney-General. That beat-up was inflamed yesterday by the new Leader of the Opposition, who, instead of welcoming the conviction of this group, used half of question time to score points off the Attorney.

I was very surprised during the MPI to see the member for Wentworth citing Rob Stary, who has strongly political views opposing the terrorism laws, which I know are supported by the member for Wentworth and the opposition. It is very odd for the Liberal Party to be citing Mr Stary, as it is with Mr Greg Barns, whose extremist views on Middle East politics are well known. Both of these lawyers are ideologically opposed to the terrorism laws, which I know the member for Wentworth and the opposition support. As anyone who has read the Attorney’s comments can see, he did no more than welcome the verdict. He was careful to say he was not commenting on those trials which had not been concluded. He said:

It is my view that the successful prosecution … is the most successful terrorist prosecution that this country has seen.

Isn’t it wonderful, and shouldn’t the opposition be supporting it? Compared to similar trials in Britain and the United States, which have been complete flops, our investigators have done a wonderful job.

I want to commend the officers of the Australian Federal Police, ASIO and the Victoria Police, who get very little thanks for their work. In this instance, and no doubt in others we have not heard about, they have successfully protected the Australian community from a deadly attack, an attack of the kind we saw in New York. I read that the convicted terrorists’ lawyer, Mr Stary, said that these were inconsequential figures. So was Mohammed Atta before he reduced the twin towers to ground zero. All Australians should be appreciative of the security agencies’ work. The prosecution of Benbrika and his group shows that both the Commonwealth and Victorian governments are deadly serious about the prosecution of people who plan these kinds of acts. The Prime Minister said:

… this Government will continue to take a hard line on terrorism. The outcome of these cases in Victoria demonstrate that we have a continued challenge on our hands. The Government will continue to adopt a resolute approach to dealing with this challenge within Australia. Australia still faces risks when it comes to the terrorist threat and our law enforcement agencies will continue to be vigilant.

But I say this loud and clear that these convictions represent a clear message to those contemplating any act of political violence. We in Australia not only will not tolerate it but the full force of the law will be brought to bear as well.

The success of these prosecutions stands in sharp contrast to the failed prosecution of Dr Mohammed Haneef. The passing of Australia’s antiterrorism laws was a bipartisan endeavour, an endeavour in which I had a small part. The prosecution of genuine terrorist threats has the full support of both sides of the House, in contrast to the opportunism we saw yesterday, particularly from the member for Sturt. But it is a very regrettable fact that the former minister for immigration mishandled the Haneef case, as is acknowledged even by media commentators friendly to the former government.

There are some other aspects of cases concluded in the Victorian Supreme Court that I would like to draw attention to. Although Benbrika and others like him seek to recruit Australian Muslims—especially young Muslims—to the terrorist cause and in a few cases they succeed, the great majority of Australian Muslims reject terrorism, reject extremism and want only to live peaceful lives. As the Attorney-General recognised in his comments yesterday, the cooperation of the Muslim community was essential to the successful apprehension of Benbrika and his group. I am very pleased to note that the prosecutor, Mr Richard Maidment SC, told the jury that Islam was not on trial and that Benbrika’s views should only be seen as reflecting his views and not the true views of Australian Muslims. The Federal Police Commissioner also added his views yesterday in the Herald Sun when he said it was an important part of the counter-radicalisation adopted by the AFP, Victoria Police and other state forces to ensure more police contact with Muslim groups. He said that it was important that figures such Benbrika were stopped before they could influence others. That is why it is so important to engage with the Muslim community. That was the argument both of Mr Keelty and of the Attorney-General yesterday.

Let me conclude by emphasising that it is very important that the approach towards successful moves against terror remains bipartisan. Therefore, it is plainly silly for the opposition to try to make cheapjack points attacking the Attorney-General and to cite people like Mr Robert Stary. Mr Stary is perfectly entitled to his political views. His views, however, do not represent the views of either the government or the opposition on the issue of the terrorism laws—neither do the views of Mr Greg Barns, another barrister, who is well known to the member for Wentworth and who, I repeat, has extreme views on Middle East matters. It is important for Australia’s safety, when these trials take place and there are successful prosecutions, to show the Australian public that our security services are successful and are doing the right thing. Benbrika’s gang’s conviction is in contrast to cases in Britain and the United States, because our parliament, courts and security services, working lawfully and together, have successfully brought these matters to a conclusion. That is the big picture that the Attorney-General was making. (Time expired)